Space Travel

[Metamorph]

Ok now I'm really pissed off. You're a dumbass pop cultist who thinks that just because they watched every episode of Star Trek and/or read a single work of Isaac Asimov that you suddenly get what's going on on this front.

Do you even get how and why the discovery of how L4 and L5 work was such an absolute game changer? They are their own mini-gravity wells. A shipyard constructed there wouldn't need much in the way of station keeping fuel. The forces acting upon it at those particular points in space would do all the work barring true cataclysms like Gamma Ray Bursts somehow lancing the station like a precision artillery strike.

Y'know, events so unlikely to occur that that you'd be forgiven for failing to prepare for them.

I am now wondering if this is now a conflict that separates the LIE's from the ILI's. You may curse my predilection to wait and see before I fully commit to a critical decision. Yet I may rightfully curse you for committing to a course of action without gathering enough intel...

My only criticism of this post: Are we really going to take the Fake Intellectual (lol) for granted on their typing and also assume it's a cause of conflict? I mean, I probably wouldn't type you as ILI if I were typing in a vacuum because I've generally assumed Te refers to a preference for knowledge about whatever seems to work rather than a search for objective truth, so I've only wanted to type neoliberal and neoconservative people into the Te-valuing quadras gamma and delta as well as thinking of Te as an objectively bad thing. I've been inclined to think of Ti less as "subjective" and more as abstract, so like science vs. engineering. This is reinforced by the popular conception of Te as money.

[Metamorph]

This one is actually readily answered from my end. See, the "elite" don't seek to prove the inferiority of mankind to whatever they perceive themselves to be. They just seek to defy God. Evil is their good and good is their evil. If this sounds so dumb and stupid to you it hurts than congratulations you're sane. Sin makes you stupid. Catholic theologians can put it better than I can but let's just say that rebelling against our God-given rational intellect has a rather obvious side-effect.

I know I already responded to this post but I want to take it apart now because there are things I was thinking I should say. I don't think the elites are trying to prove the inferiority of mankind to their imaginary identities, I think they're trying to prove the inferiority of mankind to the demons they worship. I think this is the catch: humans are better than demons, not just morally. Notice it never says Satan used to be an angel, though arguably humans might be better than angels too. I think all evil people are simply motivated by being evil, but the "elites" in particular mostly have their position because they worship demons. They think the demons are better than them, better than humans, and better than God. I usually like saying something like Illuminati more than "elites" because I don't think this applies to all famous, rich, or successful people whatsoever, just a big enough majority that it makes them a powerful demographic that can act on demographic interests. Another thing is I don't think the intellect was created with the purpose of having anything permanently hidden from it. Of course humans have to work to know things and are constrained by time and effort, but I think nothing at all was intended to be some kind of incomprehensible mystery. I think the main sin of demonolators is generally to say some things were designed to be incomprehensible mysteries. I tend to take issue with Catholicism on similar grounds but now I think Catholics agree with me on too many other issues for me to want to accidentally rub them the wrong way saying things like "the Trinity makes no sense." Sure, good people want to do good and evil people want to do evil, but people also genuinely end up defining good and evil in different ways and the only way it can be sorted out is for things to be fundamentally comprehensible, otherwise you are just rolling dice at complete random to believe things that may or may not be true.

It also seems like our mindsets are quite similar. Truth is truth. You can hate it. You can wish it was not like that. Yet it is what it is and nothing you do will change it. You either accept that and adapt or you can defy it and suffer most painfully. This is how I've always perceived the "Gamma" mindset. Reality is reality. Either accept, adapt, and overcome or don't and suffer failure after failure. This is the worldview that results from / joining with /. A seemingly fluid worldview at first glance yet is ultimate crystalline.

This is another major nitpick I would have. I think Ti has more bearing on truth than Te honestly. Te is about efficiency. I honestly view Te as almost being something fundamentally wrong or bad to value. Sure, we need people who can find the way that works but that needs to be subservient to the idea there really is a truth. The thing about just "doing what works" is that it will only work in the short run and then it will backfire. It is like Faust (Marlowe's not Goethe's) where the magician sells his soul for what he wants on Earth for a short time and then goes to Hell for all the rest of eternity, because he didn't understand he should try to cover infinite times and not a temporary time. (Goethe's is rather different since it's a bet rather than a sale and Faust is literally dissatisfied with having everything on Earth partway through so he wins. Goethe's Faust also is generally portrayed as a much nicer person than Marlowe's.)

Noam Chomsky, speaking in the symposium, wasn't so enthused. Chomsky critiqued the field of AI for adopting an approach reminiscent of behaviorism, except in more modern, computationally sophisticated form. Chomsky argued that the field's heavy use of statistical techniques to pick regularities in masses of data is unlikely to yield the explanatory insight that science ought to offer. For Chomsky, the "new AI"—focused on using statistical learning techniques to better mine and predict data— is unlikely to yield general principles about the nature of intelligent beings or about cognition.

Noam Chomsky: Where Artificial Intelligence Went Wrong - The Atlantic

There is also the practical and funnily enough damn near atheistic reason they'd hate for humanity to achieve cheap and easy space travel. Y'know about Hans-Hermann Hoppe and his idea of Covenant Communities, right? Well, if ya had a whole damn solar system with plenty of resources (and the Sol System is so stacked to the gills with them I'm certain that a detailed description of it would qualify as an ersatz "Eden" in some distant alien's pulp fiction) then holy hell there is literally no reason for any of us to fight! The "truth" will win out in the end. Let X faction/community control the starlifting arrays. So long as they don't get uppity and forceful they'll come around. In the event they start to use their position to force others to adhere to their dogmas, well, the array is awfully fragile in the ultimate analysis and at that point they'd be pissing off literally trillions of humans who know that quantity has a quality all its own...

This would obviously defuse pretty much any reason for anyone of us to fight. Who gives a fuck who controls Ceres if me and mine have this awesome spot on Ganymede that grows wine grapes so good everyone's willing to pay six figures for but a single bottle of the wine we make?

I don't think anyone has ever been fighting over resources themselves. I think all the fights are over religion. Humanity going to space the way it is now would probably turn to Warhammer 40k long before 40k years even passed. I keep wondering if we're going to need an Apocalypse before we can even go to Mars since going to Mars the proper and pleasant way would be identical to colonizing the Solar System and quite a few writers seem to treat it that way (Ada Palmer of the Terra Ignota series is another. I fundamentally disagree with her worldview but I find the unfolding of events in her books accurate due to her work as a historian, just her interpretation seems extremely off and I've thought she needed to push herself harder instead of saying "the brain is part of the body so I will take several years off writing to take care of myself!")

I've pointed this fact out to everyone who cared to listen but the tech and capacity to realize the existence of things like cheap space travel, O'Niel Cylinders, Orbital Rings, etc. Is already here. We could do all that right here, right now. Yet we do not. Why? Because the PTB know what I know and they ain't about to allow us all to realize a future/world where they hold no true power. The Davos Men will fail in their attempts to confine us to this rock whilst maintaining their current power (seemingly absolute, yet also fading fast).

I just hope and pray that they don't try and glass this planet out of spite in the near future. They have enough nukes to do that and I fear they're as sore a loser as their lord and master....

I don't think that's it at all. They could easily create the God-Emperor of Mankind on the Golden Throne. I think they just don't want to give the human intellect the time of day in order to spite God for not using it so they are waiting for demons to take them to space like the Order of Nine Angles glossary says. (I've made different threads and posts on Order of Nine Angles as well as behaviorism and AI and most other topics I've mentioned here.) John Whiteside Parsons also seems relevant but I have not looked into him quite as much.

[Fake Intellectual]

Ok now I'm really pissed off. You're a dumbass pop cultist who thinks that just because they watched every episode of Star Trek and/or read a single work of Isaac Asimov that you suddenly get what's going on on this front.

Do you even get how and why the discovery of how L4 and L5 work was such an absolute game changer? They are their own mini-gravity wells. A shipyard constructed there wouldn't need much in the way of station keeping fuel. The forces acting upon it at those particular points in space would do all the work barring true cataclysms like Gamma Ray Bursts somehow lancing the station like a precision artillery strike.

Y'know, events so unlikely to occur that that you'd be forgiven for failing to prepare for them.

I am now wondering if this is now a conflict that separates the LIE's from the ILI's. You may curse my predilection to wait and see before I fully commit to a critical decision. Yet I may rightfully curse you for committing to a course of action without gathering enough intel...

Enough Intel? You still haven't told me a valid plan to get humans realistically to the stars, and the entire basis of any plan you've given me is based off of extraordinarily energy intensive system that human are incapable of producing. Also, I didn't say that space stations are a bad thing, I just said that they don't really help with interstellar travel. I mean, if you want to 3-d print a massive fuel tank in orbit, and you needed filament, may as well construct it over earth orbit than have to send the filament to a Lagrange point (which requires vastly more fuel). Then could use nuclear engines to reach earth escape velocity, then raise or lower you're orbit (lower in my case) closer to the sun.

I may as well outline my plan, since you're not getting it. My plan is to dock a cargo SpaceX Starship to a solar sail in low earth orbit, then refuel the starship in LEO, as to get enough fuel to reach earth escape. Then you would move in close proximity to a large structure with mirror in both ends, using the law of I=r in order to concentrate light from a large area to a small one. It's hard to explain without showing you a diagram, but it essentially reflects a large amount of light onto a secondary mirror, which in turn reflects the light behind the mirror. This light concentrator can be used to accelerate the solar sail to extremely large speeds. High sensitivity tracking would be required on the light concentrators part, but an accurate system like that shouldn't be difficult to produce. This mirror would be close to the sun, but not enough to burn up. This is done, as the closer you are to the star, the more light it will capture.

After the sail reaches Alpha Centauri, you do what is called a dive bomb maneuver into the star, slowing down the vessel dramatically. It requires a few gravity assists from the smaller star and Proxima B in order to fully secure orbit around Alpha Centauri. You would jettison any unneeded mas before doing a dive bomb, as to increase the effectiveness. For example, you could jettison any nuclear reactor you brought along, and then deploy light solar arrays in order to keep the vessel powered. You then adjust your orbit to intercept with Proxima Bs atmosphere. Once you reach the atmosphere, the Starship is ejected and begins reentry, while the solar sail burns up (as it's no longer needed). The starship is refueled by the solar sail's reserve fuel, before doing a dive bomb, as so that the tank could be jettisoned to reduce weight. This gives Starship enough fuel to land to Proxima B with little issue. Proxima B is only 27% more massive than earth, so a simple refuel gives more than enough.

After Starship lands, it could use robots to start constructing a base, or you could keep the ship idle and deal with cargo unloading when humans reach the station.

As far as getting humans there, you would have to use nuclear propulsion, or something like a manned version of project Daedalus. Unfortunately, it will have to be a generational ship due to the fact that it would take around 40-50 years to reach Centauri. But after it does reach the main star, all fuel tanks and engines are jettisoned, and a large solar sail is deployed, and does a very similar maneuver done with the Starship solar sail. You would then land the humans on the planet, and then you have realistically achieved human interstellar travel.

Your plan doesn't seem to contain any detail, unlike mine. So if anyone has a lack of information it's you.

[Fake Intellectual]

My only criticism of this post: Are we really going to take the Fake Intellectual (lol) for granted on their typing and also assume it's a cause of conflict? I mean, I probably wouldn't type you as ILI if I were typing in a vacuum because I've generally assumed Te refers to a preference for knowledge about whatever seems to work rather than a search for objective truth, so I've only wanted to type neoliberal and neoconservative people into the Te-valuing quadras gamma and delta as well as thinking of Te as an objectively bad thing. I've been inclined to think of Ti less as "subjective" and more as abstract, so like science vs. engineering. This is reinforced by the popular conception of Te as money.

They're probably ILI. Matches up pretty well. Although I don't know what this guy is trying to debunk me on. Oh well.

Glad you like my name though lol. It has been used against me in so many arguments, all for the sake of a stupid joke

[Metamorph]

They're probably ILI. Matches up pretty well. Although I don't know what this guy is trying to debunk me on. Oh well.

Glad you like my name though lol. It has been used against me in so many arguments, all for the sake of a stupid joke

He's trying to debunk your entire argument and I agree with him on almost every point and disagree with you on almost every point.

[Fake Intellectual]

Well for someone who disagrees with me, both he and you have zero actually good points to debunk me on. He wants to gather all the resources in the solar system? Yeah, that's incredibly unrealistic. C'mon, I'm an LIE and I have to be the one who's acting like a negativist because you saw a video on YouTube once that said "space travel is easy." Well I'll tell you what, they are liars, liars who don't take into consideration the enormous amount of resources and science that actually goes into this. No, you can't just hyperspace, that's B.S.

None of you're ideas could actually work in the near future; far future maybe, but if we want to get to Alpha Centauri, we can't depend on unrealized theories that won't be realized for many years.

[End]

My only criticism of this post: Are we really going to take the Fake Intellectual (lol) for granted on their typing and also assume it's a cause of conflict? I mean, I probably wouldn't type you as ILI if I were typing in a vacuum because I've generally assumed Te refers to a preference for knowledge about whatever seems to work rather than a search for objective truth, so I've only wanted to type neoliberal and neoconservative people into the Te-valuing quadras gamma and delta as well as thinking of Te as an objectively bad thing. I've been inclined to think of Ti less as "subjective" and more as abstract, so like science vs. engineering. This is reinforced by the popular conception of Te as money.

I am rather offended and gravely insulted at being lumped into the likes of neolibs and neocons. As Bill Hicks put it: "Spineless, Soulless, Spiritless, Corporate Little Bitches, Suckers of Satan's Cock each and every one of them!" I am a lot of things, but that is something I will never be!

Yes, is more focused on what works over figuring out a complete system that also explains the how and why. Fits into how works after all. Hopes and dreams are only that without a concrete way to realize them within this reality. With that? They become a goal. An ambition that can and probably should be worked towards and realized. The analogy I like to use is that is an "applied" engineer whereas is a "theoretical" one. The applied engineer is paid to make sure everything works. He can and probably does know the how and why, but in the event that escapes him in the moment or something it doesn't much bother him. If it works it works. Let the eggheads explain the particulars. Fits with its pair which helps to relate that complete system to others. After all, if you have it all figured out yet can't explain it to others who aren't experts like you than you've accomplished nothing of any real significance.

There is a saying amongst applied engineers: "Good enough is perfect." I'd also add: "If it's stupid, but it works, it ain't stupid." That's the mindset in a nutshell from my end.

Well for someone who disagrees with me, both he and you have zero actually good points to debunk me on. He wants to gather all the resources in the solar system? Yeah, that's incredibly unrealistic. C'mon, I'm an LIE and I have to be the one who's acting like a negativist because you saw a video on YouTube once that said "space travel is easy." Well I'll tell you what, they are liars, liars who don't take into consideration the enormous amount of resources and science that actually goes into this. No, you can't just hyperspace, that's B.S.

None of you're ideas could actually work in the near future; far future maybe, but if we want to get to Alpha Centauri, we can't depend on unrealized theories that won't be realized for many years.

Unrealistic given a time frame that includes our own lifetimes. Yeah, that ain't happening while I draw breath. I may well live to see the beginnings of it, but full-on strip mining the solar system will be a thing my great grandkids will be seriously engaged in if everything works out according to my "optimistic" prophecies. And engage in it they will, because it makes sense to do so. Once you actually get into space and establish that infrastructure it snowballs really quickly.

Again, I posted a video from his channel, but I must highly recommend it yet again. Isaac Arthur lays it all out in autistic detail how and why big dreams are eminently realizable with current tech so long as we're all both a) patient and b) willing to expend the time and resources required to do it like that. It's a question of resources and the will to use them to a given end, not a question of possibility. Colonizing the whole damn galaxy at .1 percent lightspeed is quite possible as are a great many other things that may sound outlandishly out of reach to you.

I'd also give the book "The Case for Mars" by Robert Zubrin a read. He does likewise and explains how we can send a manned mission to the red planet and even full-on start colonizing the thing with only current technology to use. Now, it gets even easier if we go nuclear on that front (i.e. use fission drives for/on that final rocket stage) and we already have that tech as well. Sadly, the normies are too scared of anything involving Enriched Uranium to allow its use thanks to a successful anti-nuclear propaganda war waged by the PTB so those wonderfully Delta-V efficient wonders aren't on the table within the foreseeable future. With those in use starting in orbit we could actually start mining the Asteroid Belt and holy hell that thing is packed with both Precious and Rare Earth Metals. Worth the effort, but only currently feasible if we go nuclear and the normies won't let their governments (the only entities currently able to get the ball rolling on that front ATM) do that.

Well, China might, but they're part of the PTB and thus don't want that to happen. At least, they won't do it until they're damned sure that they've successfully supplanted the Davos Men and ensured that the "New World Order" is going to be speaking Mandarin instead of English if ya catch my drift. Unlikely from both ends as both the Davos Men are already on a course for absolute failure and the Chinese have a "Tofu-Dreg" problem that is all encompassing. It ain't just their buildings that are shit...

[Fake Intellectual]

Nuclear engines are the best bet for manned spacecraft. Using concentrated sun light beams works better with robotic spacecraft, but the acceleration would be to high for a human, unlike with nuclear.

We can colonize much faster than 0.1% speed of light, but you'll still need generational ships (due to the fact that you have to accommodate for acceleration). I recommend looking at project Daedalus. It's a spacecraft that uses a sort of nuclear propulsion to reach Barnard's star within 50 years. Although it is unmanned, a different version of it could be used. The things I would change about the design are to:

1. Attach a solar sail
2. Have three stages instead of two, while allowing even the third stage to jettison to make the solar sail vastly more effective
3. Give it the required capabilities to support two or more generations of humans for up to 50 years.

We could wait for warp research to be completed, but it would take a really, really long time to get the resources required. Plus, there could be a physical law that prevents humans from being able to survive in such a ship. I think using current technology is currently much more beneficial.

I'm not sure why you'd want to resource gather the entire solar system. We have more than enough resources on earth to colonize at least one system. Plus, 3-d printing would be very optimal in the creation of large vessel required for interstellar travel. One good idea is to 3-d print using titanium for structures that require close contact with the sun or other stars (eg. if you're dive bombing near a star with solar sails).

[Metamorph]

Nuclear engines are the best bet for manned spacecraft. Using concentrated sun light beams works better with robotic spacecraft, but the acceleration would be to high for a human, unlike with nuclear.

We can colonize much faster than 0.1% speed of light, but you'll still need generational ships (due to the fact that you have to accommodate for acceleration). I recommend looking at project Daedalus. It's a spacecraft that uses a sort of nuclear propulsion to reach Barnard's star within 50 years. Although it is unmanned, a different version of it could be used. The things I would change about the design are to:

1. Attach a solar sail
2. Have three stages instead of two, while allowing even the third stage to jettison to make the solar sail vastly more effective
3. Give it the required capabilities to support two or more generations of humans for up to 50 years.

We could wait for warp research to be completed, but it would take a really, really long time to get the resources required. Plus, there could be a physical law that prevents humans from being able to survive in such a ship. I think using current technology is currently much more beneficial.

I'm not sure why you'd want to resource gather the entire solar system. We have more than enough resources on earth to colonize at least one system. Plus, 3-d printing would be very optimal in the creation of large vessel required for interstellar travel. One good idea is to 3-d print using titanium for structures that require close contact with the sun or other stars (eg. if you're dive bombing near a star with solar sails).

Or we just go for hyperdrives and worry about protecting our innards from objects higher-dimensionally entering them Flatland style. Which isn't happening a lot while we're whirling around the center of the galaxy so probably won't be a big concern for technological space travel either.

A Correction to Einstein Hints At Evidence for String Theory | Quanta Magazine

[Fake Intellectual]

Or we just go for hyperdrives and worry about protecting our innards from objects higher-dimensionally entering them Flatland style. Which isn't happening a lot while we're whirling around the center of the galaxy so probably won't be a big concern for technological space travel either.

A Correction to Einstein Hints At Evidence for String Theory | Quanta Magazine

Hyperdrives? You serious.......

[Metamorph]

Hyperdrives? You serious.......

Yes. I mentioned it before. I mean extra-dimensional travel. Perhaps through wormholes, perhaps through direct motion, but whatever is the most easily, safely, and quickly accomplished will do.

[Adam Strange]

Yes. I mentioned it before. I mean extra-dimensional travel. Perhaps through wormholes, perhaps through direct motion, but whatever is the most easily, safely, and quickly accomplished will do.

You can travel through four dimensions right now by getting off the couch. What more do you want?

If you merely want to use this method of locomotion to reach places that are strange beyond imagining, buy a bus ticket to Cleveland.

[Fake Intellectual]

Yes. I mentioned it before. I mean extra-dimensional travel. Perhaps through wormholes, perhaps through direct motion, but whatever is the most easily, safely, and quickly accomplished will do.

Your "super easy solution" to space travel relies on trash hypotheticals that we know know thing about. We don't even know if wormholes exist, and certainly not if they are safe.

[Metamorph]

Your "super easy solution" to space travel relies on trash hypotheticals that we know know thing about. We don't even know if wormholes exist, and certainly not if they are safe.

I literally posted the strong evidence for string theory we currently have way up there as well as in the Interesting Articles Thread. Honestly I would assume free-floating starships are more likely than Stargate-style wormholes so I find your tendency to gravitate towards (pun intended) wormholes to seem rather trendy and based on pop-sci rather than the facts.

[lavos]

We still haven't solved the issue of the Van Allen belts, and we are talking about colonizing an exoplanet?

I hope we don't have to build a multigenerational Ark and play it everything on one hand soon...

[Metamorph]

We still haven't solved the issue of the Van Allen belts, and we are talking about colonizing an exoplanet?

I hope we don't have to build a multigenerational Ark and play it everything on one hand soon...

Honestly, I would just use my hyperspace drive to get around the solar system if it's going to take us months to years to get around without one.

[lavos]

Honestly, I would just use my hyperspace drive to get around the solar system if it's going to take us months to years to get around without one.

First, you would have to invent it. With the current technology, colonizing exoplanets doesn't seem feasible. This is the reason Musk is set on more realistic endeavors such as Mars. The problem with Mars is that it would have to be terraformed, but it could be a good option due to the fact that all the planets in the Solar System are heating up, due to some unknown phenomenon. It could become inhabitable in the near future. Much later, when we invent time-warp facilitators and hiperspatial drives, exoplanets might become a possibility. But in the case that we were caught red-handed with some catastrophic phenomena that endangered the continuity of life on this planet soon, we would have to build a multigenerational Ark to take us to the most viable exoplanet that could sustain life. I believe this could be done with current technology. But if I'm not mistaken, there are still the Van Allen belts (sort of a radiation shield that envelops the Earth and kills any living being that wanders too far, and are not easy to shield against) which are an insurmountable problem that still hasn't been solved, if any non-close orbit space travel is going to be achieved.

[Fake Intellectual]

First, you would have to invent it. With the current technology, colonizing exoplanets doesn't seem feasible. This is the reason Musk is set on more realistic endeavors such as Mars. The problem with Mars is that it would have to be terraformed, but it could be a good option due to the fact that all the planets in the Solar System are heating up, due to some unknown phenomenon. It could become inhabitable in the near future. Much later, when we invent time-warp facilitators and hiperspatial drives, exoplanets might become a possibility. But in the case that we were caught red-handed with some catastrophic phenomena that endangered the continuity of life on this planet soon, we would have to build a multigenerational Ark to take us to the most viable exoplanet that could sustain life. I believe this could be done with current technology. But if I'm not mistaken, there are still the Van Allen belts (sort of a radiation shield that envelops the Earth and kills any living being that wanders too far, and are not easy to shield against) which are an insurmountable problem that still hasn't been solved, if any non-close orbit space travel is going to be achieved.

Yeah. It would take generational ships to get to Alpha Centauri. With current technology, I think we could reasonably get there within 40-60 years, but time is an issue. Another issue is that it would take 4 years to communicate with earth, and you would have to set up stationary communication relays in-between earth and alpha Centauri (I think you would need about 18 relays).

Getting nonliving things to alpha Centauri within 20 years is relatively easy though. My idea is to use a giant mirror orbiting close to the sun that reflects light onto photon sails attached to the payload. You couldn't do this with humans, because the acceleration would kill them (as well as the radiation being extreme with this kind of system).

[lavos]

Yeah. It would take generational ships to get to Alpha Centauri. With current technology, I think we could reasonably get there within 40-60 years, but time is an issue. Another issue is that it would take 4 years to communicate with earth, and you would have to set up stationary communication relays in-between earth and alpha Centauri (I think you would need about 18 relays).

Getting nonliving things to alpha Centauri within 20 years is relatively easy though. My idea is to use a giant mirror orbiting close to the sun that reflects light onto photon sails attached to the payload. You couldn't do this with humans, because the acceleration would kill them (as well as the radiation being extreme with this kind of system).

What solution do you have for the Van Allen belts?

[Fake Intellectual]

What solution do you have for the Van Allen belts?

That's an issue. With 3-d printed structures, you could use Z-PEEK (a radiation resistant filament), but you would probably need some lead shielding as well. It's good to reduce needed lead shielding as much as possible (because it's so heavy). Luckily, radiation gets more dispersed the farther away you are from the sun.

An alternative is a water shield (if you're sending humans). In fact, you'd have to bring water anyways, so may as well use it for radiation shielding. However, you would still need some lead. I think SpaceX is probably planning to do this with Starship.

Probably the best idea is a use of all of these solutions. A Z-PEEK shield, a water shield, and a lead shield. This would probably be the most lightweight and efficient solution.

[Metamorph]

Yeah. It would take generational ships to get to Alpha Centauri. With current technology, I think we could reasonably get there within 40-60 years, but time is an issue. Another issue is that it would take 4 years to communicate with earth, and you would have to set up stationary communication relays in-between earth and alpha Centauri (I think you would need about 18 relays).

Getting nonliving things to alpha Centauri within 20 years is relatively easy though. My idea is to use a giant mirror orbiting close to the sun that reflects light onto photon sails attached to the payload. You couldn't do this with humans, because the acceleration would kill them (as well as the radiation being extreme with this kind of system).

You are truly a fake intellectual and reminding me why I always get banned from subreddits in my actual areas of study.

[Santa Claus]

Let's be more realistic guys.

[Fake Intellectual]

You are truly a fake intellectual and reminding me why I always get banned from subreddits in my actual areas of study.

If I were stupid, I could start trying to use emotions to win the argument. Unfortunately for you, I'm not stupid. You using personal attacks without an actual argument blatantly tells me you lost.

[Metamorph]

If I were stupid, I could start trying to use emotions to win the argument. Unfortunately for you, I'm not stupid. You using personal attacks without an actual argument blatantly tells me you lost.

I gave my argument and you completely and utterly ignored it and now ironically you are attacking me.

Do you think we have to get out a microscope and see strings wiggling around before we can confirm string theory? By that logic you would have to experience everything yourself and make all the mistakes yourself and you could not learn from wisdom. You would have to discover everything yourself so you could physically see it to know about it. I swear English could use a reportative evidential so people could understand you don't need to be directly involved in everything to know. You can be tricked even more easily by your own eyes than by someone who really matters.

[Fake Intellectual]

I gave my argument and you completely and utterly ignored it and now ironically you are attacking me.

Do you think we have to get out a microscope and see strings wiggling around before we can confirm string theory? By that logic you would have to experience everything yourself and make all the mistakes yourself and you could not learn from wisdom. You would have to discover everything yourself so you could physically see it to know about it. I swear English could use a reportative evidential so people could understand you don't need to be directly involved in everything to know. You can be tricked even more easily by your own eyes than by someone who really matters.

I didn't ignore your argument. I attacked your argument head on, then you ignored by comeback, and from that you claimed that I ignored you. It's a cycle.

You claimed that we should use unproven technology. I claimed that that's stupid. You couldn't manage to refute my argument without me bouncing back with an even more resilient argument, then you retreated to using personal attacks.

[Metamorph]

I didn't ignore your argument. I attacked your argument head on, then you ignored by comeback, and from that you claimed that I ignored you. It's a cycle.

You claimed that we should use unproven technology. I claimed that that's stupid. You couldn't manage to refute my argument without me bouncing back with an even more resilient argument, then you retreated to using personal attacks.

You never addressed my argument. You completely ignored my argument about how we don't need to see something visually to see that it works. I am a Leibnizean rationalist and not a Humean empiricist. Between Leibniz and Hume guess who actually accomplished things in the sciences. You completely ignored the articles I posted and only responded to the words I directly said which is the equivalent of me writing a paper citing my sources and you say "I thinky thinky what I wanty wanty!" instead. If you don't know the literature you have no business speaking about the field based on your individual whims.

[Fake Intellectual]

You never addressed my argument. You completely ignored my argument about how we don't need to see something visually to see that it works. I am a Leibnizean rationalist and not a Humean empiricist. Between Leibniz and Hume guess who actually accomplished things in the sciences. You completely ignored the articles I posted and only responded to the words I directly said which is the equivalent of me writing a paper citing my sources and you say "I thinky thinky what I wanty wanty!" instead. If you don't know the literature you have no business speaking about the field based on your individual whims.

What does this have to do with empiricism or rationalism? That's the kind of B.S. I would expect an LII to be thinking about. Well guess what; I don't give a single thought to those useless perspectives. The only perspective I care about is what works, and you thinking it's a better idea to use wormholes (which we know basically nothing about) instead of using already figured out physics is a massive waste of time. Don't depend on technology that you know absolutely nothing about, that's just plain stupid.

Also "the literature," you serious? I swear there is Ti emitting off of you. Once again, all that matters is what actually works.

[Metamorph]

What does this have to do with empiricism or rationalism? That's the kind of B.S. I would expect an LII to be thinking about. Well guess what; I don't give a single thought to those useless perspectives. The only perspective I care about is what works, and you thinking it's a better idea to use wormholes (which we know basically nothing about) instead of using already figured out physics is a massive waste of time. Don't depend on technology that you know absolutely know thing about, that's just plain stupid.

Know what's really stupid? Locking yourself up in the Human Ant Colony for multiple generations in the hope that maybe your children will live on a planet orbiting Proxima Centauri. A spaceship is a lot more like a submarine than a cruise ship, you would have to be insane to want to live on one and I think "cold sleep" is also rather useless as well as dangerous. You are denying that we have strong evidence for string theory on the level of evidence we have for the Higgs boson, which is considered proven. The only people I've met who denied that are people who think we have to physically catch a Higgs boson and dissect it under a microscope essentially.

I also prefer hyperdrives with complete degrees of freedom over wormholes but you seem to think that's so inconceivable you only want to address the idea of wormholes. Well, at least that is asking people to visualize higher dimensions which isn't a popular pastime so ignoring the possibility of self-propelling hyperdrives is more understandable than ignoring entire articles I post.

[Fake Intellectual]

Know what's really stupid? Locking yourself up in the Human Ant Colony for multiple generations in the hope that maybe your children will live on a planet orbiting Proxima Centauri. A spaceship is a lot more like a submarine than a cruise ship, you would have to be insane to want to live on one and I think "cold sleep" is also rather useless as well as dangerous. You are denying that we have strong evidence for string theory on the level of evidence we have for the Higgs boson, which is considered proven. The only people I've met who denied that are people who think we have to physically catch a Higgs boson and dissect it under a microscope essentially.

I also prefer hyperdrives with complete degrees of freedom over wormholes but you seem to think that's so inconceivable you only want to address the idea of wormholes. Well, at least that is asking people to visualize higher dimensions which isn't a popular pastime so ignoring the possibility of self-propelling hyperdrives is more understandable than ignoring entire articles I post.

Yeah, well having to live on generational ship is kind of what you have to do in the real world if you what to get to another star system. Welcome to reality.

I never denied string theory or the higgs boson (especially not the higgs boson). I have entire books my room about those things. However, string theory is flawed, and the new theory is lacking completeness. We do not, as of yet, have a complete theory of everything. Sorry to break it to you.

Also, explain to me how this "hyperdrive" works. Your only using that big word to sound smart, so explain to me how it works. If you mean warp drives, that still has some unproven science (still better than wormholes), but the main issue is the shear amount of energy that would require. That technology might be feasible in the distant future, but it just can't work with modern technology.

[Metamorph]

Yeah, well having to live on generational ship is kind of what you have to do in the real world if you what to get to another star system. Welcome to reality.

I never denied string theory or the higgs boson (especially not the higgs boson). I have entire books my room about those things. However, string theory is flawed, and the new theory is lacking completeness. We do not, as of yet, have a complete theory of everything. Sorry to break it to you.

Also, explain to me how this "hyperdrive" works. Your only using that big word to sound smart, so explain to me how it works. If you mean warp drives, that still has some unproven science (still better than wormholes), but the main issue is the shear amount of energy that would require. That technology might be feasible in the distant future, but it just can't work with modern technology.

...OK, show me the generational ships that have outperformed hyperdrives in reality. You can't, because no one has built either of these things yet, but we're closer to building hyperdrives.

As far as I understand, extradimensional space is related to mass and gravity so something affecting the type of particle something is would remove it from the braneworld. I doubt it would take an impossibly large amount of energy, though it would probably still be much more than conventional rockets. To be honest, I am of the opinion that dark energy and dark matter are probably not really new kinds of things but just the same kind of thing we already see in a braneworld model. So if the brane is bent way over on itself, the shadow of bosonic matter would appear as dark matter and the movement of the braneworld space itself would appear as dark energy. If string theory is missing anything, it's probably missing the homologies between low-dimensional and high-dimensional topologies which I've heard of off and on but haven't saved many papers on since I don't really bother with high-dimensional topology despite the practical applications for interpreting different types of data.

[Fake Intellectual]

...OK, show me the generational ships that have outperformed hyperdrives in reality. You can't, because no one has built either of these things yet, but we're closer to building hyperdrives.

As far as I understand, extradimensional space is related to mass and gravity so something affecting the type of particle something is would remove it from the braneworld. I doubt it would take an impossibly large amount of energy, though it would probably still be much more than conventional rockets. To be honest, I am of the opinion that dark energy and dark matter are probably not really new kinds of things but just the same kind of thing we already see in a braneworld model. So if the brane is bent way over on itself, the shadow of bosonic matter would appear as dark matter and the movement of the braneworld space itself would appear as dark energy. If string theory is missing anything, it's probably missing the homologies between low-dimensional and high-dimensional topologies which I've heard of off and on but haven't saved many papers on since I don't really bother with high-dimensional topology despite the practical applications for interpreting different types of data.

I once again ask you to explain how your hyperdrive works, and how it addresses acceleration, radiation, and other risks. Give me an answer, not a tangent.

[Metamorph]

I once again ask you to explain how your hyperdrive works, and how it addresses acceleration, radiation, and other risks. Give me an answer, not a tangent.

The preferred design would create a localized brane out of the cohesion of bosonic matter in a ship or other vehicle, a secondary design would warp the entire brane we live on changing its structure on a small scale but still entirely changing the homology of the brane and folding itself over rather like in the book A Wrinkle in Time. Acceleration and radiation are not really high concerns when moving perpendicular to the 3-manifold in which resistance and radiation-emitting hazards originate. I would be more concerned about objects puncturing directly into three-dimensional shielded areas, which seems extremely likely assuming the 3-brane is not flat and someone just taking a tiny meteor piece or something higher-dimensional to the stomach like in the book Flatland, or the same happening to part of the ship destroying its function or integrity. The most likely mechanism seems to be something identical to the Higgs field since strings, which create the types of matter, take their properties from oscillating in hyperspace in string theory (and it is hyperspace, it's just a less Star Wars-sounding use of the word hyperspace) and probably partially from the brane itself. Additionally, the speed of light as a limitation seems to be an effect of three-dimensional space itself since other massless objects also are limited to the speed of light, except in cases of distorted gravity where the speed of light can far be excelled, or in the case of quantum leaps and entanglements which generally appear something like teleports. The hypothesis about gravity seems to be that space itself is distorted in the first place, and a common one I have heard is that there is more space near objects with a high mass than near ones with a low mass so objects are more likely to be found near massive ones than massless ones and that is gravity.

[Fake Intellectual]

The preferred design would create a localized brane out of the cohesion of bosonic matter in a ship or other vehicle, a secondary design would warp the entire brane we live on changing its structure on a small scale but still entirely changing the homology of the brane and folding itself over rather like in the book A Wrinkle in Time. Acceleration and radiation are not really high concerns when moving perpendicular to the 3-manifold in which resistance and radiation-emitting hazards originate. I would be more concerned about objects puncturing directly into three-dimensional shielded areas, which seems extremely likely assuming the 3-brane is not flat and someone just taking a tiny meteor piece or something higher-dimensional to the stomach like in the book Flatland, or the same happening to part of the ship destroying its function or integrity. The most likely mechanism seems to be something identical to the Higgs field since strings, which create the types of matter, take their properties from oscillating in hyperspace in string theory (and it is hyperspace, it's just a less Star Wars-sounding use of the word hyperspace) and probably partially from the brane itself. Additionally, the speed of light as a limitation seems to be an effect of three-dimensional space itself since other massless objects also are limited to the speed of light, except in cases of distorted gravity where the speed of light can far be excelled, or in the case of quantum leaps and entanglements which generally appear something like teleports. The hypothesis about gravity seems to be that space itself is distorted in the first place, and a common one I have heard is that there is more space near objects with a high mass than near ones with a low mass so objects are more likely to be found near massive ones than massless ones and that is gravity.

Alright. It's an actual answer. However, it is still all very speculative science. I mean, it completely requires that string theory is true (which has not been proven).

Unfortunately, the best bet is warp drives, and we don't even know if exotic energy exists, which means it might be impossible.

[Metamorph]

Alright. It's an actual answer. However, it is still all very speculative science. I mean, it completely requires that string theory is true (which has not been proven).

Unfortunately, the best bet is warp drives, and we don't even know if exotic energy exists, which means it might be impossible.

I've heard the best bet is Shkadov thrusters, actually. Which is counterintuitive because it's turning the whole solar system into a ship. But that might be the starting point in being able to find all these resources. If the solar system is swimming anyways why not give it a rudder?